Should David Bain get compensation?

[cullennz]

It can't be relied on soley from Binnie. He went over his remit

 

[Samson]

If you read the first 14 pages you will change your mind.

http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/201250/01Justice Binnies report.pdf

In fact he writes the report precisely the way Charlie Wilkes describes crime scenes. There is something about the brain pool in North America which makes me totally ashamed to be a so called kiwi, and suggest Collins should be sacked before she does any more damage.

 

[cullennz]

I'll read tomorrow.

 

[cullennz]

He has been found aquited. Why now no description of what happened?

 

[Samson]

I think the simplest data point is the certainty of proof that Robin Bain entered the house before David, and was in the vicinity of four dead bodies, and thus unlikely to kneel obediently to be shot in such a manner suicide can also be a consistent finding.

 

[Samson]

62. On 22 December 1996 the forensic evidence that was collected by the Police from the
house before it was burned, and from the bodies at the mortuary, some of which was used at
the 1995 trial, was ordered by Det. Sr Sgt Doyle to be destroyed by 26 January 1996.**This was
before expiry of the time limited for seeking to appeal the convictions to the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council.**The defence received no advance notice.**Fair trial rights of any accused
require the preservation of such evidence in the event (as ultimately happened) a new trial is
ordered.**The Police exhibit register 2008 lists about 30 crime scene samples that were
destroyed.**David Bain’s lawyer, unaware of the destruction, gave notice of his appeal on 31
January 1996.***

 

[Samson]

And this anecdotally does and should strike a chord with New Zealanders who have all made their minds up without studying a skerrick of evidence, praise them.

64. Compensation would express the government’s disapproval of such a cumulative failure
by the authorities to “take proper steps to investigate on possibility of innocence”.**It would be
an acceptance of some responsibility by the state for the shame and stigma of a wrongful
conviction and thirteen years in prison for crimes which, in my view, David Bain is unlikely to
have committed.***

 

[cullennz]

And this anecdotally does and should strike a chord with New Zealanders who have all made their minds up without studying a skerrick of evidence, praise them.

64. Compensation would express the government’s disapproval of such a cumulative failure
by the authorities to “take proper steps to investigate on possibility of innocence”.**It would be
an acceptance of some responsibility by the state for the shame and stigma of a wrongful
conviction and thirteen years in prison for crimes which, in my view, David Bain is unlikely to
have committed.***

It is pretty simple.

Dave the nutter just has to say what happened.

The other evidence is muddled

 

[Samson]

It is pretty simple.

Dave the nutter just has to say what happened.

The other evidence is muddled

One of the interesting observations Binnie makes is that police used his claim that only he knew the whereabouts of the key to the trigger lock as proof he was the killer.
Of course lucid Binnie points out that a man trying to cover his crime would not make that statement. He then points out that Robin Bain had ammunition that was only used with that gun in his caravan.

You see where this is all heading?

 

[Samson]

As a general point, not commenting on the circumstances of this particular case, yes I do think he should get compensation.

He's far from the only person to have been freed on appeal after having his life ruined by a conviction which was later overturned. The vast majority of these people are factually innocent. Why is it safe to say this? Because it's far harder to get unconvicted than to avoid being convicted in the first place, if you're innocent. There's an interesting long article somewhere called "Unarresting the arrested" detailing the difficulties of getting the cops' talons out of someone they're determined to convict. Getting "unarrested" or even more so unconvicted after a conviction, when you're actually guilty, is not a trick many people pull off.

Nevertheless, in an attempt to prevent such people profiting from their situation, the authorities have introduced another hurdle to jump before compensation is paid. Proveing innocence beyond reasonable doubt. In some cases this can be done, for example where the cops actually identify the real culprit, or an unbreakable alibi is proved. In many cases though, it can't be done. A weak case that should never have been prosecuted in the first place is overturned, leaving some hapless soul out on the streets with nothing.

If the price of making sure that every innocent person who has had their life ruined is given proper compensation is that some money is paid out to the very occasional guilty person who lucked out on an appeal, then so be it, frankly.

(Sorry, I did start a more general thread about this on the back of an article describing a couple of different cases, but I thought I would post it here too.)

Returning to this argument, yes you damn will better be factually innocent if you want out of jail.

I have read enough of Binnie to want to helter skelter from this moronic country, and am reminded of Muldoon pointing out that NZer's moving to Australia raises the average IQ in both countries.
If this Cullinan could spend a year when 30 minutes reading the first rate logician and experienced jurist Binnie proves Bain is factually innocent, and be equivocal, he has nicked our cash with the usual contempt Australians hold for NZers.

 

[Hard Cheese]

It would be a disaster for National and will not happen. Public opinion is split and will definitely sway back into the guilty camp after the leak and I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell Key would allow it.

Public opinion may well be split about Bain's guilt or innocence, but what they won't have the stomach for is the Government throwing endless amounts of money at this. They've already spent $1m, and you can bet Karam is prepared to wind it out in court as long as he can. I suspect National will offer Bain some sort of confidential settlement, just so it's not still hanging around come election time next year.

 

[The Atheist]

Binnie said this.

Binnie has been both discredited and superseded.

 

[Samson]

Binnie has been both discredited and superseded.

Ok how about this I sketched.

Justice Binnie made a couple of interesting observations in his report that obviously few have bothered to read. Firstly, David could be confident his father would be in the house soon after 6 30 am while he was on his paper round. Secondly, Robin could be confident David would not be.

Who killed the family, based on that bit of game theory?

Robin would ring the police when he found the bodies, but he didn't. Does anyone still wonder why?

I am fascinated (not too strong a word) by these cases. I have become preoccupied with finding simple reasoning that always exists with a wrongful conviction.

To my mind the above is the most straightforward.
Robin Bain was known to set his alarm for 6 30am.
David Bain was known to finish his paper round much later. Therefore he would have to calculate that his father might not find the bodies in order to continue his career as opera singer. If you can explain this conundrum we can move onto the other fundamental proofs that exist in the first 18 pages of Binnie.

For example the Lundy case holds a similar style proof. Lundy probably learned the police were already involved in his financial transactions at 8 30 pm, before the rum and escort. The permanently name suppressed witness talked to him for 17 minutes, and his wife had called the police to their property, at 11 that morning, alarmed at the pending altercation about money he wanted from Lundy to pay out to the father and son who supplied the root cuttings. And the plods used this to show he needed the money?! Wrong. He would never do the killing now.

 

[PhantomWolf]

If the judges who have reviewed the case see Baino as "not innocent" that's factual enough for me.

Might help if you get the facts right then.

They didn't say that he was "Not Innocent" They said he was "Not Innocent, beyond a reasonable doubt."

This is an incredibly high standard (almost impossible I'd suggest since it requires proving a negative), so high we use it for deciding guilty in a trial. It doesn't mean that he is not innocent, it means that it could possibly be reasonably believed that he is guilty.

It is clear from the other reports and from the trial that there is a lot more reasonable doubt to his guilt, that there is to his innocence.

 

[The Atheist]

Might help if you get the facts right then.

The facts are right. He was not innocent.

Qualifiers are irrelevant.

 

[Samson]

Might help if you get the facts right then.

They didn't say that he was "Not Innocent" They said he was "Not Innocent, beyond a reasonable doubt."

This is an incredibly high standard (almost impossible I'd suggest since it requires proving a negative), so high we use it for deciding guilty in a trial. It doesn't mean that he is not innocent, it means that it could possibly be reasonably believed that he is guilty.

It is clear from the other reports and from the trial that there is a lot more reasonable doubt to his guilt, that there is to his innocence.

Having read Karam's book, I consider he proved Bain was innocent beyond any doubt. He had a complete alibi as he was seen doing his paper round after the computer was switched on. For cabinet to cling to completely discredited theories is proof they have done no homework.

 

[cullennz]

Having read Karam's book, I consider he proved Bain was innocent beyond any doubt. He had a complete alibi as he was seen doing his paper round after the computer was switched on. For cabinet to cling to completely discredited theories is proof they have done no homework.

Bit of a stretch.

Karam is hardly going to be unbiased

 

[smartcooky]

Bit of a stretch.

Karam is hardly going to be unbiased

Perhaps not, but facts are very stubborn things... they don't go away, and they neither care, nor depend on who states them.

I have read Karam's book, and while I do not wholeheartedly agree with some of his conclusions, I could not fault a single fact that he claimed.

 

[cullennz]

Perhaps not, but facts are very stubborn things... they don't go away, and they neither care, nor depend on who states them.

I have read Karam's book, and while I do not wholeheartedly agree with some of his conclusions, I could not fault a single fact that he claimed.

It's the ones he chose to leave out

 

[smartcooky]

It's the ones he chose to leave out

Such as?

 

[cullennz]

Such as?

It doesn't matter. I really can't be bothered going through it all again.

If I was the govt I would just pay him a mill so he goes away.

The added bonus is we wouldnt have to listen to Karam moaning.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The facts are right. He was not innocent.

Qualifiers are irrelevant.

Except it does matter. saying that he is not innocent beyond reason doubt is totally different to saying that he is not innocent at all. In fact these two things are so far apart they might as well be east and west.

It is also incredibly hard to prove that you didn't do something beyond all reasonable doubt. Short of not having been in Dunedin at the time of the Murders, I'd say that it would be an impossible goal since any evidence that might have cleared him was destroyed.

If you find that hard to understand, consider this, what evidence would you be willing to accept that would prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not guilty? Now consider the second half. Does that evidence exist? Did it ever exist? Does it still exist to be tested? If not, then you realise that the Theory of David's guilt is impossible to falsify, thus impossible to prove wrong beyond reasonable doubt.

Nearly finally.... The courts have determined that he is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, yet apparently you don't consider this to mean that his is innocent, yet when this panel determines the converse, that he is not Innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, you don't mirror your previous conclusion. You can't have it both ways and claim to be a skeptic.

Finally. The courts determined the facts and said not guilty.

 

[Samson]

In my view the courts are irrelevant in the fact finding process. Courts have made such idiots of normally sane people the system should be binned and a fresh start made.
Courts failed twice with Thomas, once with Tamihere, once or twice with Pora, once with Ellis, once with Bain, and twice with Lundy. And that is discounting the execrable work of the appeal courts. The privy council has done a good job because the brain pool is way larger and independent.

 

[The Atheist]

Except it does matter.

To you it does. To me, not in the slightest.

...I'd say that it would be an impossible goal since any evidence that might have cleared him was destroyed.

I like to call it the evidence that proves beyond any doubt he did it.

If you find that hard to understand, consider this, what evidence would you be willing to accept that would prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not guilty?

Evidence that showed how Robin was able to shoot himself in the back of the head from more than three feet away and then once dead, stand the magazine on its end.

That'll do for starters, but there's more.

Now consider the second half. Does that evidence exist? Did it ever exist? Does it still exist to be tested? If not, then you realise that the Theory of David's guilt is impossible to falsify, thus impossible to prove wrong beyond reasonable doubt.

Ditto his guilt, therefore he is getting a fair deal - he's out jail and a free man, is married to some bush-pig of his ability to secure, and I believe they've even bred.

He can have that, but not several mio to compensate him for getting out a decade early.

There is no issue here.

There is insufficient evidence to convict him; likewise, there is insufficient evidence to compensate him. Two judgements I'm ok with.

 

[cullennz]

He won't front up with what happened. End of case in my book

 

[Samson]

He won't front up with what happened. End of case in my book

It is not an uncommon pattern. Both Bain and Lundy testified first time round as innocent bystanders to crimes committed by others. When that serious endeavour was met with 13 years in jail they both tried something different the second time.

 

[cullennz]

It is not an uncommon pattern. Both Bain and Lundy testified first time round as innocent bystanders to crimes committed by others. When that serious endeavour was met with 13 years in jail they both tried something different the second time.

Sorry mate. Doesn't stack up

(Personally to me)

Just say what happened under oath

 

[Samson]

Sorry mate. Doesn't stack up

(Personally to me)

Just say what happened under oath

You can have your opinions but not your facts though. It is irrelevant to the resolution of the case what David Bain ever said or did. He rang the police and reported a crime. The New Zealand people should congratulate him on doing this, and cabinet should be sacked and replaced while this painful hoax continues. Shame on every one of them.

 

[smartcooky]

Evidence that showed how Robin was able to shoot himself in the back of the head

...except he wasn't shot in the the back of the head, he was shot through the left temple.... big difference.

from more than three feet away

My childhood friend's father blew his brains out with an old long-barrelled shotgun. The distance from muzzle to trigger was longer than three feet;

and then once dead, stand the magazine on its end.

There was the magazine on the ground, and one still in the rifle. Who is to say that the magazine wasn't placed there before Robin was shot.

The Privy Council report, para 118, said that "there is no compelling reason why it could not have been Robin".


I still go with the murder-suicide scenario.

Both David and Robin had the means and the opportunity to kill the rest of the family, but only Robin had a motive, and it was a compelling one.. he was about to be exposed as a paedophile, a revelation that would consign his standing in the community to the scrapheap.

David only had motive to kill Robin after he found his family dead.

 

[The Atheist]

...except he wasn't shot in the the back of the head, he was shot through the left temple.... big difference.

Not when the tip of the gun is over three feet from the head.

My childhood friend's father blew his brains out with an old long-barrelled shotgun. The distance from muzzle to trigger was longer than three feet;

No, not the trigger three feet from the head, the muzzle was several feet away. That's the trick.

There was the magazine on the ground, and one still in the rifle. Who is to say that the magazine wasn't placed there before Robin was shot.

Good point!

Given the difficulty of shooting oneself in the head while keeping the muzzle well away from it, he was just being prepared, in case the first half-dozen shots missed.

Why didn't I think of that?

Both David and Robin had the means and the opportunity to kill the rest of the family, but only Robin had a motive, and it was a compelling one.. he was about to be exposed as a paedophile, a revelation that would consign his standing in the community to the scrapheap.

Oh yeah, the Privy Council had great insight. What a load of cobblers.

First off, paedophilia has nothing to do with it - he was accused of incest with a grown daughter. Paedophilia is little kids, not teens. Pedantic, but it shows the level of "evidence".

Secondly, Robin had no standing in the community! They were a family of weirdos living in a rubbish tip. To say that David had no motive is incredibly naive. He's a young man with big dreams and feels he's being held back by his family.

What better way to re-boot your life than remove the damaging elements - your family - and set up a life of luxury based around people's compassion for the poor young man who had his entire family murdered.

In fact, if you want to give Baino compensation - start up a Givealittle page.

Heck, if that glorified sandbar in the sounds raised 2 mio, Baino should be good for 4 or 5.

David only had motive to kill Robin after he found his family dead.

Baloney - see above.

The fact that supporters of David are unable to see a motive is a good indication their support is based in emotion rather than facts.

 

[cullennz]

So when is the next Dave and just reunion party?

 

[Samson]

So when is the next Dave and just reunion party?

Hands. Oh will these hands ne'er be clean?

 

[Samson]

Since cabinet are as confused as ever, and are in another huddle, I decided to return to the first trial to see what is going on.

First trial

Under cross-examination Ngamoki said that all the shots that were fired during these reconstructions using a similar weapon were actually fired from the hip as opposed to the normal firing position from the shoulder. The reason the police did this was to emulate the position of David's left hand fingerprints on the fore-stock of the rifle which were pointing down over the top of the rifle in the pick-up position, as opposed to having the left forward hand underneath that part of the rifle in the normal firing position.

Then

Dr Alec Dempster, the pathologist:

He described the entry wound to Robin Bain as being 4mm in diameter surrounded by a ring of soot up to 10 mm in diameter.
"This indicates to me that this is a contact wound where the muzzle of the gun has been held in direct contact with the skin of the deceased."

This evidence requires the prosecution combo having D Bain either shooting R Bain from the hip at point blank range.

Or On the other hand if the only pathologist to physically examine Robin Bain lied about the 10mil soot ring, it is ONE shot to the temple fired from the hip at a distance.

I contend both impossible for either to be an actual PLAN.

These matters are important, I spend a lot of time trying to assemble the best proof in the most economical fashion that the five Bain, Lundy and MacDonald prosecutions are expensive hoaxes that have destroyed many families.

 

[The Atheist]

These matters are important, I spend a lot of time trying to assemble the best proof in the most economical fashion that the five Bain, Lundy and MacDonald prosecutions are expensive hoaxes that have destroyed many families.

Christ, I hope someone's paying you!

Anyway, saying the prosecution destroyed Baino's family is a bit rich, they were all dead.

Likewise MacDonald - he was a scumbag, arsonist piece of crap, which is what the problem was more. If he hadn't been a piece of crap, he probably wouldn't have made the grade as a suspect, let alone perpetrator.

Lundy? It's certainly ruined his life.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Anyway, saying the prosecution destroyed Baino's family is a bit rich, they were all dead.

Well no, he still has extended family who have totally disowned him to the point that he pretty much can't even set foot in the same island as they are.

Likewise MacDonald - he was a scumbag, arsonist piece of crap, which is what the problem was more. If he hadn't been a piece of crap, he probably wouldn't have made the grade as a suspect, let alone perpetrator.

he might be a scumbag, but that doesn't mean that pinning a murder on him because he's a scumbag is good policing. There is enough evidence that it wasn't him that the Jury had reasonable doubt that it wasn't him. It seems further that more evidence seen since the trail really casts major doubt on his ability to have committed the murder.

Lundy? It's certainly ruined his life.

This one really gets me. It seems like it's a case of "We believe he did it, we don't know how it did it, but he did it and we're going to make up different stories on how he did it until one sticks."

They failed to look at other viable suspects and totally changed everything about the Murder including suddenly deciding in the second trial that they couldn't pin down the time of death as accurately as they did in the first trial all because they had to concede that their initial case against him was totally wrong. The solution to that, make up a totally new scenario that avoids all the pitfalls of the first made up story. It really smells of making up the facts to fit the narrative instead of working with the evidence.

 

[Samson]

Atheist:
I am not trying to score points, but you did not challenge the data point. A 10 mil (one centimeter) ring of soot surrounding a four mil bullet hole in the left temple.
I leaned a stick against the wall and asked a right handed man to pick it up. He used his right hand, as I would. Control, precision, placement of object. Dempster described a non exiting bullet 45 degrees to right rear of brain and 10 degrees tilted up. This is exactly the injury a right handed man achieves when placing rifle stock on the floor, leaning his left temple to the silencer and reaching down with his left thumb. Try it. Robin Bain did and it worked
Ring of soot, passage of bullet through brain equals suicide.
We can rule out the alternative of a weapon wielding threat because David Bain's finger prints would have been in the wrong place unless shooting from the hip as explained above.

Since this evidence is original from the immediate crime scene we can logically ignore everything else. Everything.
However, unsurprisingly, both crown and defence agreed the 270 mil complete footprint was made by the killer, so it is unsurprising to learn that Robin's foot is 270 mil and Davids 300 mil, because Robin killed the family.

If two data points are not sufficient, we can go through every item and watch the dominos topple.

We arrive 22 years later at cabinet farting with the inevitable. (never do this, Joseph Heller, Good as Gold).

They are going to lose and compensate, I bet my life, because Joe Karam and David have established a legal mechanism where they go on and on and on. Trust me on this.

Two fraudulent prosecutions where the evidence was pristine and unequivocal from day one.

And then of course Mark Lundy. Two fraudulent prosecutions where the evidence was pristine and unequivocal from day one. Lundy was in bleeding Petone!! He did not possess a full bio hazard suit or the 30 litres extra of petrol to do three trips.

The killings were done by at least two thugs to attempt the settlement of the debt Permanently Name Suppressed Witness owed to their paymasters.

One drives the car, one goes in for the deed, and is surprised to find not Mark Lundy but Christine. Damn woman would not behave!

So when we bust him out of jail, he applies for compensation. He will learn from David Bain that this is uber straightforward.

Meanwhile 10 kilometers away and 10 years later two more thugs drive a car some distance, turn and leave CAR tyre tracks on soft grass (not push bike tracks that Ewen MacDonald would have left if not leaving that mythical device laying on the roadway). One gets out with a semi automatic shot gun and fires three times, as heard by the lady who is a local gun club club champion, while the farm shotgun is not employed for the murder but rests quietly in its cabinet with its two shot capacity.

Undeterred the Palmerston North police wade in with a manufactured theory, number three for the crooked little provincial town morons. But they are being busted.
They will not escape the searchlight of history, none of these people.

Among them, Grantham, Vanderkolk, Bill Wright, Susan Glazebrooke, Judith Collins, Amy Adams, and a zillion more.

I hope they read this. They are being hunted.

Meanwhile Sue Shwalger refuses to look for four killers terrorising her neighbour hood.
Yep, the Bain compensation matters alright, and so does exposing these mind boggling destructive hoaxes.

 

[The Atheist]

Well no, he still has extended family who have totally disowned him to the point that he pretty much can't even set foot in the same island as they are.

Sure, but I don't blame the prosecution for that. I blame the prosecution for screwing up the evidence.

he might be a scumbag, but that doesn't mean that pinning a murder on him because he's a scumbag is good policing.

Irrelevant - the question was relations with his family and he had destroyed them regardless of the murder trial.

Atheist:
I am not trying to score points, but you did not challenge the data point. A 10 mil (one centimeter) ring of soot surrounding a four mil bullet hole in the left temple.

The evidence is hearsay, as the physical evidence no longer exists.

They are going to lose and compensate, I bet my life,...

Jesus mate, you don't value your life much. I'd wait for something much more definite than a short-man's syndrome loser like Karam.

The killings were done by at least two thugs to attempt the settlement of the debt Permanently Name Suppressed Witness owed to their paymasters.

have you ever considered a career in fantasy writing? I ask, because that is bloody ridiculous.

So when we bust him out of jail, he applies for compensation.

I don't think escaped prisoners qualify for compensation, and since he will never admit it, he's staying inside.

Lundy's problem will be getting another appeal. I'd be betting he won't even get to court. Two trials, a Privy Appeal... there's no real way forward and I imagine the fund is well and truly dry.

Public support is zero and I see no chance of him ever getting out.

Among them, Grantham, Vanderkolk, Bill Wright, Susan Glazebrooke, Judith Collins, Amy Adams, and a zillion more.

I hope they read this. They are being hunted.

Jesus mate - you're sounding like this is all getting to you. Chill, man.

Have no fear, there is absolute zero chance Crusher & Co. will be reading this thread.

 

[Samson]

Atheist, thank you for participating. Here is an important article you should read by Jim Lovering.

http://freebrendan.org/index.php/2016/04/06/brendan-dassey-chris-tapp-agentic-state/

Quote:

In the bleak annals of wrongful conviction, the agentic state looms as a real and pervasive phenomenon. We see it again and again. Once the criminal justice system takes the position that someone is guilty of a crime, especially in a high profile case where public credibility is at stake, individuals within the system will usually do whatever it takes to sustain that position. They refuse to admit the possibility of error. They embrace any ploy or strategy that serves their purpose. They treat exculpatory facts, no matter how compelling, as a problem to be overcome.

End Quote

I consulted a professional continental philosopher for an opinion, and he states

The milligram experiment set out to prove more than that people are easily manipulable They can be manipulated into ultimate evil, he wanted to show. Like Hannah Arend'ts 'the banality of Evil' it was a response to the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem. Milligram explicitly said it supported Arendt. Naturally both got into terribly trouble with the Jewish community for suggesting that there was nothing uniquely German about the holocaust, that in the right circumstances it could happen anywhere.

Here is my project in response to this.

I am working on a project to explain to New Zealanders that they have been subjected to 5 hoaxes and I want to correct the history
Hoax 1. The first prosecution of David Bain
Hoax 2. The first prosecution of Mark Lundy
Hoax 3. The second prosecution of David Bain
Hoax 4. The prosecution of Ewen MacDonald
Hoax 5. The second prosecution of Mark Lundy.

In each case there were incontrovertible data points from the outset that these men could not have been involved in these crimes. If I can see it with clarity now it is indeed certain that underlings at the time could see it, as they were availed of all these data points before the prosecutions, yet went along with the authority figures. Then the prosecutors were obliged to craft the known facts into a fictional case due to professional obligations, although that is a point I am unsure of. I think the American code is prosecutors are not allowed to bring false cases.

 

[The Atheist]

I consulted a professional continental philosopher...

Sorry, but I find the idea of "professional philosopher" about as good as "police intelligence".

You won't get any argument from me on the pigs being swill.

I am working on a project to explain to New Zealanders that they have been subjected to 5 hoaxes and I want to correct the history
Hoax 1. The first prosecution of David Bain
Hoax 2. The first prosecution of Mark Lundy
Hoax 3. The second prosecution of David Bain
Hoax 4. The prosecution of Ewen MacDonald
Hoax 5. The second prosecution of Mark Lundy.

Good luck with that.

I suspect you'll find it quixotic, but I indulge in a lot of that myself, so I won't hold it against you.

In each case there were incontrovertible data points from the outset that these men could not have been involved in these crimes.

Bollocks. In Baino's case there is no exculpatory evidence at all.

 

[Samson]

Sorry, but I find the idea of "professional philosopher" about as good as "police intelligence".

You won't get any argument from me on the pigs being swill.



Good luck with that.

I suspect you'll find it quixotic, but I indulge in a lot of that myself, so I won't hold it against you.



Bollocks. In Baino's case there is no exculpatory evidence at all.

Hell on wheels, I just spelled it out. The ring of soot is not bleeding well anecdotal. It existed, or the pathologist is a bare faced liar. We already have one in the miserable James Pang who is being called big time in the Lundy fiasco. How many more??

If the ring of soot exists it was suicide. Man shoots self. Get it?